ShareThis Page

Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances

| Thursday, July 4, 2013, 8:55 p.m.

Lance: To New Kensington “civic boosters.” When the two people who annually undertook the task of fundraising for the city's annual July 4 fireworks became sick and couldn't handle the effort, who took their place? Nobody. That's only the latest sad commentary on the city.

Laurel: To Arnold's city government. The council and the Redevelopment Authority have a plan for the authority act as the agent to dispose of about 60 vacant homes or empty lots the city has acquired through tax sales or condemnations. And the properties will not be sold to speculators, who are sight-unseen Internet buyers from out of state who allow them to deteriorate further. We have our doubts, but applaud the effort.

Lance: To state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe. When a gay legislator attempted to speak about the U.S. Supreme Court decision that declared the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, the Cranberry Republican blocked it. Declared Daryl, “There's no free speech on the (House) floor.” It's really, really pathetic that he feels that way.

On the “Watch List”: Springdale Council. That's because we'll be “watching” to see how much former police Officer Mark Thom will end up costing the borough. Thom violated a Tarentum man's civil rights by repeatedly using a stun gun on him while he was in custody, a crime he has pleaded guilty to. He is awaiting sentencing. He lost his job, yet the borough has hired him for the summer. Now the victim in the case has filed a slam-dunk civil suit in federal court, one the borough will no doubt settle for big bucks.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.